Sunday School 3/31/24: Extra Credit

For your Extra Credit this week, I've opted to highlight a conversation with two religious leaders from Washington, DC: Wilton Cardinal Gregory, the Catholic Archbishop, and the Right Reverand Marianna Budde, the Episcopal Bishop. They spoke with Ed O'Keefe last Thursday, and the interview was shared in the Face the Nation classroom. Here are some excerpts from their conversation.

O'Keefe talked about presidential candidates Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and compared how they 'invoke Christianity."

I know this gets a little tricky. But we have one who is now selling Bibles that also have copies of the Constitution and a Bill of Rights in them. But the other is the second Catholic president, who goes to church every Sunday, who observes the holy days of obligation, and builds his schedule around them, but doesn't talk at all publicly and is uncomfortable speaking about his own faith. Are you comfortable with the role and the level of Christianity in our politics today?

Cardinal Gregory said that faith used to be "the moral voice" that political people would turn to, as the "moral compass." And now?

...I think in some cases it's the political world that's beginning to set or claiming to set the moral voice. We've switched positions. There is a great need, I believe, to place faith in its proper position, which is not necessarily antagonistic to the political arena. But to seize the responsibility of being that guiding principle, that moral light for our people to turn to.

Bishop Budde expressed concern about how the "message of Christianity is being distorted" in the country, calling it a "cause for deep concern," and more.

I feel it's a – it's an abuse of the faith. And I have to be very careful because I'm not perfect in my understanding of what it means, A, to be a perfect Christian, I'm not a perfect Christian and I'm not a perfect American, but I think we are walking on very thin ice now. I would encourage anyone who buys a Bible to read the Bible and in particular to read the teachings of Jesus, and then to set our policies if we're going to call ourselves a Christian nation against the highest aspirations that Jesus calls us to.

The two faith leaders disagreed a bit on what kind of Catholic President Biden is; Cardinal Gregory said "he could say he's very sincere about his faith," but referenced the term "cafeteria Catholic," one who chooses "that which is attractive" while dismissing "that which is challenging." Budde said, "Or, as Thomas Aquinas would say, you allow your conscience to guide you."

O'Keefe wondered if there's "something on the menu he's not ordering," in Cardinal Gregory's view.

Well, I would say there are things, especially in terms of the life issues, there are things that he chooses to ignore or he uses the current situation as a political pawn rather than saying, look, my church believes this.

 Again, Bishop Budde countered with what I think is a more balanced view.

It's also possible to be a practitioner of the faith as a public leader and not require everyone that you lead in your country to be guided by all of the precepts of your faith, right?

O'Keefe said that seems to be what Biden believes, and Budde concurred, saying that's how she interprets it. She also spoke from her experiences worshipping with Biden at Washington's National Cathedral.

I will say the one thing about him that I admire tremendously - there is not a funeral of a state's person or a state person's spouse that he does not attend, stay through the entire service, and speak from the pulpit as in eulogy, and I find that example to be an expression of authentic faith.

When asked, Cardinal Gregory said he "would not put a lot of emphasis" on any sort of "Biden impact on the pews," and he added some not unexpected perspective on the 'cafeteria Catholic' comment.

He does attend church regularly with great, you know, devotion. But he also steps aside some of the hot-button issues or uses the hot-button issues as a political tool, which it's not – it is not the way I think we would want our faith to be used. The issues of life begin at the very beginning and they conclude at natural death. And you can't – you can't pick and choose. You're either one who respects life, and all of its dimensions, or you have to step aside and say, I'm not pro-life, I'm, you know, on one side of the equation I feel that I could support this dimension of life, but in others, I would step aside.

In response, Bishop Budde offered this.

I love the spectrum of life. I think you can be in adherence of the spectrum of life and still respect a woman's right to choose in reproductive health and including when to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. So I'll just say that as a Christian I believe that that's possible and still hold to the full spectrum of life.

I appreciated how the two faith leaders spoke about their positions, but I'm surprised that the bulk of the conversation focused on how President Biden lives his faith, and nothing about president Trump and his faith. I'm not sure whether O'Keefe opted to lead the conversation towards Biden, or if his guests didn't want to talk about it. 

I think it was a disservice not to delve into how the guy who makes money selling Bibles commands so much respect from people who self-identify as 'religious.'  Maybe next time, I guess...

FYI, here's my Easter message from several years ago. Like Bishop Budde, I'm not a perfect American, or a perfect anything else, for that matter, but I appreciate the value in making an effort to be a better person, regardless of whether or not I check a 'religion' box on a form somewhere.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday (v198)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So, how's everyone doing today? Getting ready for the debate with five moderators and six candidates? I really hope NBC comes up with another person so every candidate can be matched with an individual questioner... and if they don't add one, I'll really have to wonder about their sense of adventure.

I'm going to be watching - and celebrating National Wine Day at the same time, even though I'm a day late on the latter. But no point wasting a good drinking game night, right? Here are some of my keywords for tonight: delegates; family values; Super Tuesday; South Carolina; people of color; Nevada Culinary Union; pardons; stop and frisk; media bias; raise your hand; front-runner; Elizabeth Warren (since she's been inexplicably missing from recent polls); and farmers. My bonus word? Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA.

Now, we won't have a 'debate' or anything close to that -- what we'll likely have, as we usually do, is a group interview, with a little bit - or maybe even a lot - of sniping at each other, particularly the designated front-runners: That Guy from Vermont, who is tied with a former mayor in delegates, and the other former mayor, the billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who hasn't been on the ballot anywhere, so has zero delegates and zero votes.

And speaking of billionaires, let's take a moment to wonder about the other billionaire in the race, Tom Steyer, the one who's actually on the ballot in Nevada, but who didn't make the debate stage.

That other billionaire, the impeached president, is still out there, not spending a dime of his own money, but continuing to make money off everything political. That's right: according to this Forbes article, 

Billionaire Donald Trump still has not donated a cent to his 2020 campaign, opting to fund the effort with money from supporters around the country. At the same time, Trump’s private companies are continuing to charge the campaign for expenses like rent and consulting, according to the latest federal filings. That means that since January 20, 2017, the day Trump officially declared his intent to run for re-election, his campaign has put $1.9 million of donor money into the president’s private business.

So, where's the money going?

• $1.3 million to Trump Tower Commercial LLC, in which the president has a 100% interest from his re-election team, with additional money coming from the RNC;
• $259,000 to the Trump Corporation, in which the president has a 100% interest, for legal and IT consulting;
• $126,000 to the Trump International Hotel;
• $60,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection, a management company also called Trump International Hotels Management LLC, solely owned by the president;
• $84,000 to Trump Plaza LLC, owned outright by the president; and
• $3,000 monthly payments to Trump Restaurants LLC, in which the president has a 100% interest.

Now, the assumption is that this is all legal and above board, as long as the campaign is paying market rates and all, which of course they said it does. However, the article also notes that

Even if a campaign were breaking rules by paying exorbitant rates, there’s not a lot anyone could do about it right now. The FEC, which examines such things, cannot take any official commission action unless at least four of its six commissioners vote to do so. Since Trump took office, three of the FEC’s commissioners have left their posts. Their seats—which demand presidential appointments and senate confirmations—have yet to be filled.

I don't know about you, but I have to wonder a couple of things: first of all, is there NO non-Trump-enriching space available? And second, is there any wondering why the FEC isn't up to full strength?

And one more - do the folks who are spending all of their money on Trump properties (the same as they did back in 2015 an 2016) do this on their own, or because they know if they didn't, they'd be out of a job?

What else is going on?  Let's see...  Virginia failed to pass an assault weapons ban this week, when

Four Democrats on Virginia's Senate Judiciary Committee broke ranks with their party handing the Republican minority a victory in tabling the bill for the remainder of the year. It also sent the measure to the state's Crime Commission for further review. 

The bill would have banned the sale or transfer of certain assault-style weapons in Virginia. It also would have made it illegal to possess silencers and magazine holding more than 12 rounds. 

Lots of people are wondering what happened to everyone's courage, after the Dems took control and turned Virginia into single-party government; this was a shock to many, it seems.

Reports say that Snitty Snitty Bill Barr considered resigning because of Trump's meddling and tweeting and impossible-job-making interference.  I have to say, part of me thinks that's a load of hooey - if he wanted to resign, he could have, and still can. I also wonder if it had anything to do with the couple thousand former DOJ employees calling on him to resign?

And finally, a couple of noteworthy bankruptcy filings making the news: the Boy Scouts of America and the Diocese of Harrisburg, PA have both filed, for the same reason - abuse of young people. There's not a lot left to wonder about in either case, I think for either, I think - other than, have we heard the last of it?

That's where we'll leave it for now. Enjoy the debate, if that's the correct word for it. And don't overdo the drinking game...

Poll Watch: Climate, Guns and Prejudice

As promised, here's the post highlighting what was learned about climate change, gun control. and prejudice in America from the recent Quinnipiac poll. 

Here's the small print: Quinnipiac University surveyed 1422 self-identified registered voters nationwide August 21-26. Generally, the pollsters conduct live interviews with people on randomly dialed landlines and cell phones. The margin of error for this survey is +/- 3.1percentage points.

The survey shows:

• 56% of registered voters say climate change is an emergency, with both Democrats and Independents believing this; Republicans do not. Further, 67% of registered voters believe the US needs to do more to combat climate change. 

• 72% of voters say Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence - even 50% of Republicans think so. The majority - 60% - thinks we need stricter gun laws.

• 74% of voters think that prejudice against immigrants is at least a somewhat serious issue (23%), with 51% thinking it's a very serious issue.

Let's look at some of the details.

Prejudice.

This section of the survey focused on prejudice against specific groups of people, and whether it's a very serious, somewhat serious, or not so serious problem, or if it's not a problem at all. By political party, the percentages of people saying prejudice is at least a somewhat serious problem falls where you'd expect it to, but the percentages were a little more extreme than I anticipated. 

When you look at it from a 'what's your religion' perspective, the divides are also extreme. 

When a majority of people think that prejudice against whites is a bigger problem than any other kind of prejudice, in a society in which whites are overwhelmingly better off from every measure, we've got our work cut out for us.

Guns.

As we all wait to hear from the president what he wants Congress to do, and we hear from the Democratic candidates what they want to do, here's what we want them to do.

• Universal background checks are supported by +87 (93% to 6%).  Every demographic supports this, even Republicans, at 89% and rural voters at 91%.

• Needing a license to purchase a gun is supported by +66 (82% to 16%); again, every demographic supports this, including Republicans, by +41.

• Red Flag laws are supported by +65 (80% to 15%)

• An assault weapon ban is supported by +24 (60% to 36%),Surprisingly, support for this measure is actually down 3% since the May survey. This was a surprise, given that the mass shootings in Virginia Beach, Dayton, El Paso, and Odessa/Midland, which resulted in 50 deaths and 79 injuries, happened between the two surveys.

• An assault weapon mandatory buyback is underwater by -3 (46% in favor, 49% opposed)

The overall percentage of folks saying more needs to be done, at 67%, is the highest since since the question started being asked back in December 2015.

Support for stricter gun laws comes from across all demographics except for Republicans and gun owners. Men (53%), white men (49%) and whites without college degrees (51%) all support stricter rules. Even rural voters by the slimmest of margins (47% to 46%) support this. And, 

• Almost every demographic (again, Republicans are the outlier, at -10) believe Congress needs to do more. And the overall percentage on this question is up 4 points since it was last asked in March 2018. 

• More people overall, and people of every demographic except Democrats and Blacks, feel that mental illness is a bigger cause of mass shootings than is the availability of guns. 

• Most think that stricter gun laws would help decrease the number of mass shootings, but by generally much slimmer margins than the political party demographic reflects: Dems agree +71, while Reps disagree by +54. 

And no matter what the president says, we do think he has an impact on white supremacists when it comes to motivating them to commit violence. Everyone but folks in the four standard outliers are of one mind on this.

Climate Change.
40% of voters overall (and 15% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 44% of Independents) are worried that someone in their family might be affected by an extreme weather event. The overall percentage is unchanged since this was last asked in December 2018.

By age group, 43% of those 35-49 and 65+ are worried; by race, Hispanics (48%) are the most worried about this. The least worried? Republicans (83%) white men (67%) all men (66%), and whites without college degrees (63%).

On the question of whether we're doing enough, doing too much, or if we need to do more, 91% of Dems and 76% of Independents say we need to do more. In fact, every demographic but one --Republicans, at 32% - believe by a pretty significant margin that we need to do more.

As to whether climate change is an emergency, only Republicans, at 81% saying no, and people 50-64 (50% no, 49% yes) believe it's not. All other demographics believe it is. 

One more thing.
The last question asks whether the respondent feels more safe or less safe with Donald Trump as president or if he doesn't have an impact on a person's sense of safety. By a +20 margin (46% to 26%), people feel less safe with Trump in office. 

#MAGA, or something. 

Sunday School 8/19/18

I ducked into two classrooms today, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, to hear from the Bishop of Pittsburgh, and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to hear from Mick "pay me and I'll listen to you" Mulvaney, Trump's Budget Director and head deregulator of the CFPB.

If you're interested, you can check out Chuck Todd's interviews with former CIA Director John Brennan and with Rudy Giuliani, if you can stand that last one, on Meet the Press.

I'll start with Mulvaney, who was on the show to tell us that things with the economy will continue to be great. For example, when asked to talk about changes from the Congressional Budget Office on the sustainability of Trump's economic growth,he said the people who challenge the numbers have a "vested interest" in seeing Trump fail. And, he explained, what the Trump administration has done - deregulation, and taxes, are not a sugar high. 

It's fundamentally changing the way we create wealth in the country.

No one can disagree with him on that, I don't think. It's true that corporations, their executives, and their shareholders have seen a terrific boom from the changes that have occurred; much less so, from everything I've seen, for the people who work for the companies. Here's just one article talking about wages and inflation, which notes that buying power hasn't really moved in decades.

You can read the rest of what he had to say, about the upcoming budget negotiations, Trump's now cancelled military parade, and more in the link above.

Moving on to the horrific report that some 300 priests in Pennsylvania sexually abused more than 1,000 victims over some seven decades, we hear from Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh, who has been the bishop of the Pittsburgh diocese since 2007. He began by offering three key messages:

First of all we need to have a - a deep sense of empathy for all the victims who have suffered so much; as I apologize to them we need to continue with looking for efforts to help their lives become better.

Second of all, I can well understand the rage that people have in reading this report. I feel that rage  as well too. 

And third of all, I want to offer my support to the very faithful priests and deacons who served our people so faithfully.  

He was less charitable, if that's the right word, about allegations of a cover-up. He said there wasn't one in Pittsburgh, that all allegations were turned over to the appropriate authorities and that they have responded to every allegation in the report, and those responses are public.

Stephanopoulos referenced a specific item from the report that suggested a cover-up involving Zubik, including a confidentiality agreement.

It says the testimony of the victim of Monsignor Raymond Schultz who testified that he was abused or raped 10 to 15 times, and he describes a meeting with you (Zubik) where you offered to pay for college tuition for his children, counseling as well.

But the victim says he refused the offer because the Diocese followed up and said this - I want to put it up on the screen - "you're going to have to meet with our lawyer and sign these documents that basically said you are done with, you can't come after us, it's over, no public, your mouth is closed."

Zubik denied the suggestion of a cover-up.

No, I think first of all, George, that was an allegation that was brought forward after the person who was alleged to have committed the abuse was in face deceased. I think that we have taken a position, the Diocese of Pittsburgh since 2002, not to do any confidentiality agreements. But we needed to be able to assert whether or not the alleged behavior did in fact occur.  And that was part of the discussion that took place in that particular case.

Next, Stephanopoulos asked Zubik about comments from the Survivors of the Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), show below, and he asked for Zubik's response.

(SNAP) is calling for tough action against your diocese. It says Catholics should stop donating to Bishop Zubik's diocese until he steps down or takes proven steps to protect kids. Such a boycott may be the best way to cut through the persistent denial of Pittsburgh's church hierarchy. 

Zubik disagrees.

I want to go back to when I became the bishop of the diocese of Pittsburgh in 2007. I can honestly say that we have followed every single step that we needed to follow to be responsible in our response to -- to the victims. First of all, we've listened to them carefully. Second of all, we've removed priests from ministry. Third of all, we have in fact turn it over to the district attorneys of the appropriate counties. Fourth of all, we have engaged the independent review board to assess and take a look at the allegations and whether or not a person would be suitable for ministry again.  

And we have in fact informed the - the people in our parishes about those allegations as well as put our press releases accordingly. So I think that that behavior and the steps that we've consistently taken since 2007 really works against SNAP's calling for my resignation.

Asked what he'd say to the many Catholics who feel betrayed by the church hierarchy,  Zubik focused mostly on the past, with a nod to the future.

We have to be able to to continue to look at the things that -- that we have done to really correct the issue. The church of Pittsburgh today is not the church that's described int he grand jury report. And if I could indicate, you know, starting with - with 1988 when Bishop Wuerl became bishop of Pittsburgh, one of the first acts that he had to confront was an abuse of two brothers by three priests. He was very passionate about addressing... sexual abuse. 

And what happened is that we began to develop stringent policies around sexual abuse. He was very direct with the priests in 1988 to tell them if they knew anything they had to come forward. We established an independent review board to assist the bishop to be able to assess allegations. Fourth of all, we established a diocesan assistance coordinator. It was a position that - that meets specifically with victims. 

And we both first encouraged people who were victims to go forward to report their allegations and then we followed up on that as well, too. Those were some of the things that we've done in the past to try to -- to show people that we had been doing things over the course of the years. And we can't stop there.

We have to look for new ways to be able to eradicate sexual abuse in the church, but to work together with all of society to eradicate from society in general. 

Wuerl, now the Archbishop of Washington DC and a key ally of Pope Francis, is facing calls to resign after the grand jury report said he had shielded abusive priests; a petition to remove his name from a prominent Catholic school the the Pittsburgh Diocese has gotten over 6,000 signatures, aiming for 7,500 as the next threshold.  He has withdrawn as a speaker at a conference in Ireland.

Zubik has admitted "a few priests" named in the report are still in the ministry, because the church was not able to substantiate the allegations against them.

See you around campus.

Random Thoughts: Dammit, I'm Mad!

Able was I, ere I saw Elba.

A man, a plan, a canal - Panama!

Was it a rat I saw?

Never odd or even.

Yep - it's palindrome week, that once a year event where the dates are the same frontwards and backwards.

And, of course, there's the palindrome in the title, which seems appropriate this week. Here are just two examples of maddening behavior from this week.

Dammit, I'm mad and horrified and disgusted and whole bunch of other emotions about the latest report of Catholic priest abuse and the associated cover up. This time, it's in Pennsylvania, hundreds of priests (a third of whom are deceased) and over a thousand identifiable victims, with potentially an equal number of others who did not or cannot come forward. And with the fact that Pope Francis hasn't directly addressed it (although a Vatican statement was issued). And we've pretty much stopped talking about that already.

Dammit, I'm mad that the national media is spending so much time talking about the guy in Colorado who killed his family. First, we got to see him on the national news talking about how he raced home from work when his wife wouldn't answer his text messages, and mentioning an 'emotional conversation' he and his wife had at 4 in the morning - at which point I turned to my husband and said "he did it" - and ever since, we've heard from friends and family, and the police and the body language 'experts' ever since he confessed and we know all about their financial troubles and all the rest, and it's only going to continue.

Meanwhile, here are the names of the 349 people murdered in Chicago this year, through August 14th. They are receiving zero attention, less than zero attention.

What the heck is wrong with us?

Each Time

Each time a person says Islam is a terrorist religion, 

I will say Catholicism is pedophile religion.

Each time a person says All Muslims are terrorists, 

I will say All priests are pedophiles.

Each time a person says All Muslims should be shot, 

I will say All priests should be shot. 

Each time a person says We should destroy a mosque, 

I will say We should destroy a church.

Each time a person says Muslims only want to destroy America, 

I will say Catholics only want to destroy America. 

Each time a person says We should bomb the Muslims,

 I will say We should bomb the Catholics.

Each time a person says Terrorists attacked Paris, 

I will say 

Thank you for not painting an entire religion with a brush of hate. 

First They Came for the Muslims

Most of us have heard  some version of the "First They Came" quote, one of which is below.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out,
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out

because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

There's some disagreement over who wrote it, or what the original version was; it's generally attributed to Martin Neimoller, a German pastor and lecturer, although it supposedly could have been written by some counter-culture types who figured no one would pay attention if they put it out on their own, so they tagged Neimoller with credit.  

Regardless of the true origin, the meaning is clear, as is the evergreen and challenging nature of it.  Watch:

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out

because I was not a Muslim.

Seem relevant? It should; all you have to do is watch the news coming out of France on anti-Muslim attacks since the terrorist acts on Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery store; or Germany, where there are regular anti-Muslim rallies; or read any number of articles right here at home, or listen to our politicians:

• John Bennett of Oklahoma, who professes to have read the Koran and has determined that Islam is a "cancer that needs to be cut out of our nation" among other things.
• Bobby Jindal, Catholic convert from Hinduism, Louisiana Governor and possible presidential candidate, on the need for Muslims to assimilate, and stop with their Sharia law stuff and those unnamed 'no-go' zones where women are afraid to go without veils.
• Jack Whitley, a Republican party hack from Minnesota, who pronounced last November that we should "frag" Muslims when they make their pilgrimage to Mecca - I mean we know they're going to be there, right? 

Or, read your state's political party platform, such as the one from Texas which specifically calls out Sharia Law as something from which protection is needed; even in the face of cases where American people and companies have benefited from our courts taking such laws into consideration.

Some of us at least appear to have difficulty differentiating between a faith and terrorists. For some people, it's a definitive choice; hatred for others who are not like us is not unheard of. For others, though, it's possibly a lack of understanding or it's perhaps because they've never thought about it.  That's the way it is for us in majority America when it comes to race and racism (it doesn't exist, right?) and religion (mine is good and yours is OK as long as it's a lot like mine or at least resembles mine a little) and free speech (as long as it's not critical of anything I believe in or even remotely critical of America. If you need examples, look no further than 'American Sniper' discussions).

What would happen, I wonder,  if this were the next verse we wrote today:

Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, 

for I was not a Catholic.

Catholics? Why would anyone come for the Catholics? 

Catholic priests abused children, tens of thousands of children around the world; the true number terrorized by these men of the cloth may never be known.  The Catholic church at different times feigned ignorance of the abuse, then denied it ever happened. They failed to protect the children from the abusers, and instead focused on protecting the Church and her leaders; they moved abusers from parish to parish, expanding the problem instead of limiting it. Had church officials been school teachers or doctors or bus drivers or coaches or politicians or people from any other walk of life, they would surely have ended up in jail. Permanently in jail.

These men were terrorists, plain and simple. They were priests, yes, and they were Catholics, yes, but they individually were terrorists.  They did not represent the entire Catholic clergy, and their behavior is not presumed to be representative of all Catholics.  In fact, the opposite is true.  

The presumption (from people who were not victimized by these men) has always been that these individual priests were monsters, and that maybe some of the leaders of the church were complicit in the cover up, and that maybe some did not do enough to take care of the victims. There are still Catholics who believe this never even happened.

But has there been a call to round up all Catholics, to ban all Catholics, to evict all Catholics, to bomb and shoot at Catholic churches, to burn down Catholic houses of worship? Any calls to 'frag them' on Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday? Of course not.

It would be wrong to brand an entire faith and all her followers as terrorists, simply based on the bad acts of a small minority of them, wouldn't it? 

Well, sure, that would be wrong.

Unless of course they're not done taking care of the Muslims.